A staple of my youth, this is one of the great "good-bad" movies offered during the 1980s and '90s.
Bloodsport tells the "true story" of mixed martial artist Frank Dux, a U.S. Army officer who took part in the infamous Kumite, an underground fighting competition held in Hong Kong. To honor his recently-deceased martial arts sensei, Senzo Tanaka, Dux enrolls in the Kumite, hoping to fulfill Tanaka's dream for his own son, who had died several years earlier. While evading U.S. government authorities who seek to pull him out of the illegal competition, Dux tears through the competition in the Kumite, including an epic final match against the intimidating and brutal reigning champion, Chong Li.
Bloodsport is a master class in poor plotting, lame scripting, and a lot of really, really bad acting. The cliches are almost endless, the plot holes baffling, and there are only two actors in the whole movie who actually know how to really act. So why do so many people still enjoy it, including me? Two reasons. The main one is the Kumite itself, and a secondary reason is that the movie accidentally fell into the "so bad it's good" zone that is often the mark of cult movies.
Let's get into the "bad." This was the very first starting role for Jean Claude Van Damme, the Belgian muscleman and "fighter" who flirted with being the next big action star in the late 1980s and early '90s. Thanks to his good looks, perfectly chiseled physique, and dazzling athleticism, he was the type of movie actor who many young people either wanted to be or to be having sex with. But it was all too clear from his performance in Bloodsport that acting was far from the forte of the "Muscles from Brussels." With a stilted delivery and odd intonation, it could be painful to see or hear him try to emote. He would get a bit better in this area as his career wore on, but only so much. In Bloodsport, it was still extremely rough. And the rest of the cast is almost universally as bad. The only two actors who come off as skilled pros are the ones who most audiences will recognize from other American movies: Donald Gibb (best known as the iconic "Ogre" from the Revenge of the Nerds movies) and a young Forest Whitaker. But even these legitimately capable actors could only do so much with the tepid script they were given. In a stroke of blind luck, though, the rest of the actors are so bad, and the script so cheesy, that much of it comes off as funny. Unintentionally funny, yes, but funny all the same. The combination of dopey dialog, delivered by bad actors in heavy accents results in tons of hilariously quotable moments.
The plot outside of the Kumite? Forget it. There are more than a few head-scratchers without answers that they're barely worth your time. Why the hell is Senzo Tanaka training his 8-year-old son to take part in a full-contact, underground fighting competition where people are known to have died? Who on earth is this Victor guy who just shows up to "manage" and guide Dux and Jackson? And on it goes. Add to that an uber-cheesy soundtrack and a few laughable "chase scene" segments, and the silliness goes off the charts.
Martial arts movie veteran Bolo Yeung, as the frightening Chong Li. He's not a sophisticated character by any means, but he's effective at making you pray that Dux beats him.
But the Kumite tournament itself? Still extremely satisfying to watch, I must say. Firstly, it was only on this most recent viewing that I actually appreciated how good the visuals are in this movie. The camerawork, fight choreography, costumes, and lighting are all excellent. The people and colors pop off the screen, giving it an appealing look to it all. And many of the fighters are very distinctive in their looks, fighting styles, and outfits, giving the Kumite an enjoyable video game feel. More than these, though, is the presentation, structure, and unfolding of the tournament itself. For the first half hour or so, it's mostly a mystery, though we've seen some of the fighters preparing. Once the first fight kicks off, though, we can see that the movie's going to put on a good show. Then, the second fight arrives and we get to see Chong Li in action. Played by longtime martial arts movie villain Bolo Yeung, the Chong Li character is one of the most memorable martial arts villains of all time. The ever-glaring, nearly mute Chong Li (he only has four lines in the whole movie) is like an unstoppable force of fighting destruction. A former bodybuilding champion in his native China, actor Yeung has a strikingly massive physique, and he uses it to play Chong Li as an eerily quiet, menacing force whose sole purpose is to destroy his competition on the Kumite mat. Thanks to fun, measured fight choreography and effective camerawork and editing, Bloodsport gives us fight sequences that are still entertaining.
Does the combat look "real"? Hell no. Unlike more modern fight movies, which often have studied actual mixed martial arts experts and incorporated them into the look and feel of action movies in the last twenty years, Bloodsport is more in line with old school, East Asian kung-fu movies or even pro wrestling. Nobody would actually win a fight trying to pull off the moves seen here. If Frank Dux tried a split-leg, flying roundhouse kick or Chong Li tried a 360-degree backhand against an actual MMA fighter, their clocks would be thoroughly cleaned in about five seconds. Movies like Bloodsport aren't about that. They're more like ballet movies for people who like fantasy violence. Yes, the characters on screen are trying to hurt each other. Badly. But there's a grace, power, and athleticism to the proceedings that can be captivating to watch. Bloodsport gets this part of it so right that it trumps all of the other painfully obvious weaknesses.
So this movie is still plenty of fun. While I've only ever seen about a half dozen of Van Damme's many movies, Bloodsport is probably still the only one that I can enjoy rewatching. Kickboxer I recall being decent, with some of the same strengths and weaknesses, but without the fun tournament structure of Van Damme's first.
Agent Cooper (right), with several of the locals of the town, all attending Laura Palmer's funeral. Every character embodies some degree of poor decision-making, oddity, or a combo.
The Original Series (1990-1991)
What a strange little slice of TV history to return to, a full thirty years after its initial airing and nearly twenty years after my original viewing of it.
Those of us in Generation X almost certainly remember the buzz surrounding Twin Peaks thirty years ago. Even if you never watched it during its original airing (I didn't), you heard about it. You knew it was about a murder mystery in a small town populated by weird characters. The question of, "Who killed Laura Palmer?" percolated into the mainstream, despite the show being so markedly odd.
I, being a fairly unadventurous 14- and 15-year old back when the show originally aired, had zero interest in the show. It wasn't until a good decade later, when I was working in a small town in the north of Japan that I was hunting some new viewing material and picked up the VHS tapes (that's right - VHS tapes) of the first two seasons. I plowed through them in a matter of about three weeks, only then seeing why the show had developed a cult-like following so quickly ten years prior. I also saw why, after such a meteoric rise to popularity, it ended after only its second season. But how does it all hold up now, thirty years after its release, and after creator David Lynch returned for a "Return" season on Showtime in 2017?
The answer is that is doesn't hold up too badly, though it's fairly clear why it was canceled.
For those unfamiliar with the show, it kicked off with the discovery in a small town in the Pacific Northwest of the dead body of Laura Palmer. We soon learn that Laura was the "dream girl" of the town - the beautiful, high school prom queen that was the object of many people's eye and many men's desires. The strange details around her murder attract the attention of the FBI, who sends agent Dale Cooper (Kyle McLachlan) to Twin Peaks to investigate. Cooper is a rather odd fellow, who is always extremely chipper and seems to have boundless fascination with the supernatural. He is also a Sherlock Holmes-caliber investigator with immense powers of observation and logic. He soon learns that he will need all of his skills to solve the case of Laura's murder, as Twin Peaks has more than a few strange and dark characters lurking within and around it, some of them weaving sinister plots that belie the otherwise sleepy town.
Nearly everything about Dale Cooper and the mysterious and creepy details around Laura and her murder were what made this show so compelling. And they still are, even if you recall how the tale played out. Kyle MacLachlan turns in an iconic performance as the peppy Agent Dale Cooper, and his become the scenes that you are always looking forward to. Yes, there are other amusing characters and some decent acting from a handful of the other cast members, but it's MacLachlan's Cooper who made this show what it was. The great novelty of this character was that, instead of merely being an amazing crime investigator, Cooper was more than willing to think outside the boundaries of classical Western logic, following hints and clues gleaned from altered-state visions or even outer space. These elements of Twin Peaks (still evident in the recent revival of the show) are what made it distinct, and I'm not sure that it would have worked without MacLachlan's fearlessly ebullient turn as Cooper.
Any scenes with Bob were chilling, especially since you often didn't know when they were coming.
As with most David Lynch projects, Twin Peaks was a wild ride, even this original prime time network show, which would obviously restrict the famously surreal and disturbing Lynch. Following a running theme for Lynch, the show presents a veneer of classic, American tranquility that is merely a thin mask covering some absolutely nightmarish corruption and violent, primeval urges. And the show takes some seriously dark turns. Dark enough that my wife made a regular habit of turning away whenever one of the several very intense sequences would occur. I was even squirming more than a little at some of them, and I'd hardly call myself "squeamish" when it comes to movies and TV shows. But it's this balance of dark and light that makes the show unique and compelling.
So why did the show get canceled after only two seasons? Some of it is a bit obvious, while some of it I had to research a little. The obvious is this: the show wasn't always very consistent, thanks in part to David Lynch's proclivity for casting people based more on looks and the "vibe" they exude than on acting skills. Some of this actually works, as there's often more than a little campiness to the show, which can often give it a very soap opera feel. Some people love camp, and while I can appreciate it at times, it's not my favorite style or mood in TV and movies. More than this, though, is that the murder of Laura Palmer was actually solved by the middle of season two, apparently against the wishes of David Lynch and co-creator Mark Frost. This left the second half of that season following secondary and tertiary characters through stories that were either uninteresting or just plain goofy. Another element was an upended airing schedule that got shuffled due to coverage of the Iraq Desert Storm invasion in 1991. According to what I read, these reasons together resulted in the show's rating dropping precipitously enough that the network gave it the ax. The shame is that, in the final few episodes, it seemed like the show had started to find its footing again, with the introduction of Cooper's nemesis Windom Earle and a solid cliff-hanger. Alas, we would have to wait nearly three decades to get the continuation of the tale, though we would get a prequel movie just over a year later...
As disturbing as the original show could be at times, the prequel film goes well beyond it, thanks to a lack of network restrictions. And the movie leans hard into that, going completely dark in the second half.
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)
This prequel film, released a little more than a year after the final TV episode, covers events leading up to Laura Palmer's death. It begins roughly a year before the murder, following a different pair of FBI agents who are on the trail of a murder that has happened some way south of Twin Peaks, closer to the Pacific coast. The two agents start to piece together enough clues to realize that the victim was killed by the serial-murdering "Bob" character who later kills Laura Palmer, but the agents mysteriously disappear before they can learn more. The tale then fast-forwards to about a week before Laura's murder, where we get a close look at how troubled she is, and how much self-destructive behavior she engages in, in order to dull her inner turmoil. It takes the form of drug abuse and even highly risky sexual adventures. These habits bring her all-too close to the people who help pave the path towards her ultimate destruction - the murder that triggers the events of the original TV series.
As any type of stand-alone film, Fire Walk with Me isn't very good. Anyone who hasn't seen the TV show would be completely lost and probably totally disconnected from and baffled by any of the events. Yes, there are some dazzling visuals, some decent acting here and there, and some great music. But the story and dynamics between characters are bound to leave an unversed viewer annoyed at best, and angered or bored to tears at worst.
As a prequel to the TV show, though, it's an interesting enough chapter to the greater story. Without the restrictions of network TV, Lynch could get as dark and disturbing as he wanted to, which is saying something. It can be a bit odd to see more sexually graphic material and more colorful language in a world that previously was molded by prime time American sensibilities, but it fits the subject matter well enough. And the darker sequences with Laura and Donna in a hedonistic drug and sex den were strangely hypnotic, thanks mostly to the trippy, opium jazz buzz of the music score and the camera and lighting work. This scene, and a few others, made the film worth watching for me, even if there was more than a little narrative fat present.
Anyone interested in the full Twin Peaks story should check out the movie, but one shouldn't expect any grand "magic bullet" answers to the more bizarre elements and greater questions around the tale. That's not what David Lynch is about, and this film just serves as further proof. Keep your expectations in check, be aware of what Lynch does, and you'll find a few things to appreciate in this film.
And with all that, my wife and I were ready to jump into "The Return" show, which I'll be reviewing in the next week or two.
The Story(in which I completely give away all plot points, including any spoilers. Fair warning):
*In order to tell the full tale, I feel it necessary to cover the original film, Frankenstein. In addition, all readers should be aware that these reviews cover the film versions, not the book. The films take much "artistic" license with Mary Shelley's novel, which will be briefly covered later.
Frankenstein: Young Doctor Henry Frankenstein robs a few graves to assemble the final pieces that he needs to complete his ultimate experiment - to create human life from previously-dead tissue. He is successful in creating a hulking but inarticulate being. To the horror of his onlooking fiancee, Elizabeth, and closest friend, Victor, Frankenstein revels in the majesty of his accomplishment. Unfortunately, Frankenstein's sadistic henchman, Fritz, frightens the creature, who escapes into the countryside. Henry returns home to marry Elizabeth. Meanwhile, the creature roams free, seeking friendship but finding only horrified villagers. After mistakenly killing several people, including young children, the monster is chased by Frankenstein and a German posse into a windmill , where he is seemingly burned to death.
Bride of Frankenstein: Picking up where the previous film left off, we see that the creature escaped death by falling into a deep, watery recess underneath the burning windmill. Back at Frankenstein's nearby home, the doctor prepares to marry his betrothed. A mysterious and sinister character from Dr.Frankenstein's past named Dr. Pretorius arrives on the scene and entreats Henry to work with him to recreate his experiment. We soon see that Pretorius is a death-obsessed, maniacal genius who has created a bizarre menagerie of strange creatures of his own. He will stop at nothing to force Frankenstein to help him realize his ghoulish vision.
All the while, Frankenstein's creature roams about, initially finding the same hatred as before, until he finds an old, blind hermit in the woods. Not seeing the creature's hideous exterior, the blind man takes him for a mute, treats him with kindness, and even teaches him how to speak, though in a limited capacity. Eventually, a few villagers show up, see the monster, and run him off once again.
The monster, amazingly, comes across Dr. Pretorius, and they conspire together to kidnap Elizabeth and force Frankenstein to construct a female companion for the creature. The young doctor concedes and creates the female abomination. However, once she becomes aware and sees the original creature, her intended mate, she recoils in horror. Upon realizing that he has no hope of finding a kindred spirit in this world, the creature sabotages the machinery in the massive laboratory, killing himself, his "bride" and Doctor Pretorius, with Frankenstein and Elizabeth narrowly escaping.
Take 1: My Opinion(done after one viewing, before any research on the film): Bride of Frankenstein is a really good movie, though steeped in some old, B-Horror movie conventions. It's clearly better than its predecessor, even though both were directed by the renowned horrormeister James Whale. The primary difference is that Bride moves closer to the deeper themes of Mary Shelley's timeless novel, whereas the first Frankenstein keeps things relatively simple.
While in Frankenstein, the creature is portrayed as almost more monstrous than sympathetic, in Bride, there is a much better balance. By allowing him to speak and giving more time to his obvious pleas for companionship, I felt much more for him than in the first film. This touches on the creator/creation relationship that was so key to the novel. The vehicle for this shift comes in the scenes between the "monster" and the blind man who takes him in. In these few minutes of the film, we really see the creature as a young, desperate and tormented child who wants nothing more than contact. Here's a taste of the interaction:
Scenes like this one set this classic horror flick far above its peers. Perhaps the capper is the literally explosive grand finale. By accepting death rather than a tormented and solitary life, the creature represents a certain existentialism that belies the B-horror veneer.
My main problem with the movie is that it is rooted in a few clumsy elements. Dr. Pretorius, played extremely eerily by Ernest Thesiger, seems somewhat contrived. While the character himself is somewhat intriguing, he represents the biggest of several serious gaps in the narrative. Who is Pretorius? Why the death fixation? This guy quite literally just shows up on the doorstep and takes control of the entire movie, with nary an explanation. The plot was obviously highly streamlined in order to keep the pace quick, but it leaves a few too many questions to be answered for my liking.
In addition to the semi-choppy narrative, there are several insanely coincidental occurrences that defy my ability to suspend disbelief. Chief among them is the monster happening across Dr. Pretorius in a tomb. I suppose you could argue that it fits that these two beings, both having affinities for the macabre, would meet in such a place. I had to roll my eyes a bit at it, all the same.
In all, though, it's a really good movie that earns the moniker of "classic". Modern viewers, especially young adults, may not be able to see past the outdated effects and occasional silliness of some scenes. If, however, the viewer can look past the surface, they may see a lot of things that the vast majority of films, horror and otherwise, are sorely lacking.
Take 2; Why Film Geeks Love this Movie(done after some research on the film):
This film is hailed as one of the greatest horror films ever. Film historian Scott McQeen even goes so far as to call it, "the perfect horror film." In listening to his audio commentary, he certainly makes his case well. He points out a lot of the meticulously-planned elements of the movie, including the visuals and the overall character interactions. I agree that the aesthetic of the film is really engaging and cohesive, with elements of baroque, rococo, and expressionism blending really well to create a slightly alien feel to the world. Even a non-art buff like me can appreciate these things.
I also discovered that my initial feelings about the narrative being a touch choppy were not just subjective. Apparently, the script and film went through several edits, thanks in large part to objections by the Hays censorship board. In the end, a longer scene that explains the relationship between Frankenstein and Pretorius was cut, along with several other scenes in which the monster kills people.
One surprising thing is that the original TIME magazine review saw Bride as equal to the original, rather than superior. Here's their original review.
The really interesting thing about the creative forces behind the films is director James Whale. A somewhat flamboyant, totally atheistic man, Whale was a playful and strong-willed man who had a vision and tried all he could not to compromise. He may have been one of the earliest users of campiness in his films.
Dr. Pretorius, displaying his bizarre menagerie of experiments. This character gleefully and skillfully tiptoed the line between genuine eeriness and laughable camp.
A lot of analysis has been done on the possible religious and homosexual symbolism or themes in the film. In the end, it all sounded like people with too much time on their hands (ahem...). There's a great story about the movie: In the late 40s, James Whale went to a review showing of Bride. Throughout the show, Whale was obviously amused by his own cleverness is telling the equally horrifying and entertaining story that he wanted to, while tap-dancing around censors and critics, so he kept chuckling during the moments he knew were meant to be humorous. A woman in front of him, not knowing who he was, agitatedly turned and said, "Look, if you don't like the film, you can damn well leave!"
Just goes to show that few, if any, of us ever completely see all of the things that a filmmaker is showing us. Or, if we do, it's not for years or decades after they first revealed it to us.
Related Media
"Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus" (novel; Mary Shelley): brilliant novel that has been and will be around for centuries. The universal themes of existentialism and the search for knowledge through technology are still as, of not more, relevant today as when the novel first came out 200 years ago. James Whale took a lot of liberties with the story, right down to the names of some of the main characters, but retains some of Shelley's more brilliant ideas.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (film; 1994): Pretty wretched attempt to blend a faithful rendering of the original novel and the more popular conceptions of the story as created by James Whale. Director and main man Kenneth Brannagh was trying to do way too much with this one, and ended up creating a technicolored mess. Cool visuals. DeNiro as the creature is pretty good. The rest of the this thing is totally overblown, though, and in only a few moments does it approach anything worthwhile. I got through about two-thirds of it but couldn't take any more. Give me the original James Whale movies any day.
That's a wrap. 11 shows down. 94 to go.
Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.
This one looks a little froo-froo, so I don't know what to expect. I may have to follow it up by watching Mike Tyson's Greatest Knockouts, just to keep my feminine/masculine equilibrium.
